Torchwood Isn't Gay Enough

[lampbane]

Yeah, that's right, Torchwood, the show about sex-crazed alien hunters created by Russell T. Davies, the very gay man who also brought us the original Queer as Folk, is not very gay at all.

Comments

[luminifer]

i agree completely, and i'm really glad you wrote it down in such detail, as i probably would not be able to do it myself.

i'll add this -- some of the lower-brow aspects of the humor i think also detract from the show.. it's meant to be taken as funny that jack will do anything to anything, which maybe is funny, but i think it gets old quickly when that's a key point to your main character (as opposed to some side character)...
it's sort of like the issue i have with a lot of gay comedies that are, kind of, the equivalent of the black comedies depicting guys with watermelon, overalls, and a bucket o' fried chicken...

when watching torchwood (and doctor who), we've often commented on how UNprogressive this davies fellow is... it's really disappointing.
(i'll not get into my thoughts on the awful dialog and sub-par plots and, in my opinion, terrible endings to so many episodes).

and i like this:
mostly because romance tends to drag the story into cliché

[lampbane]

The omnisexual humor does get a bit tiresome, which is why I think they crammed it all into the season opener to keep it out of the rest of the episodes. This season they've focused more on Jack/Ianto, Jack/Gwen, and Jack's childhood so far, which at least suggests they're trying to build him more as a character.

I never saw the original Queer as Folk, but the US remake used to drive me mad. The entire show seemed to hinge on the premise that the main character, Brian, exuded special homosexual rays that turned people gay as soon as he looked at them. I've heard of gaydar, but this show was just ridiculous. Well, either that or everyone in Pittsburgh is actually gay.

[luminifer]

having spent college in pittsburgh, it sometimes felt that way actually ;)

[pseudohistorian]

This is an awesome, cogent analysis of the sexual dynamics on Torchwood. Seriously, I can't disagree with a single point you made, and although I've had some of these thoughts myself, you went further with it (and no doubt expressed it more articulately) than I could have.

Before I gush anymore over here, I'll probably just end up posting a link to this entry and singing your praises on my own journal. ;)

When it comes to other shows, I hear you there, too. I couldn't stand Will & Grace when it first aired because the humour seemed so one-note (and because gay innuendo isn't inherently funny), which left the premise so much more limited than it might've been. As for Queer as Folk...perhaps it's not so much gaydar there, but rather a gayser, or gaygun, that's being shot at the citizens of Pittsburgh? ;)

[luminifer]

i was just saying (i think before i read any of this thread actually) that it would be interesting to make a heterosexual version of will and grace.. to prove how unfunny it really is..

just translating all the awful 'jokes' into heterosexual terms...

[pseudohistorian]

Well, all the jokes would be, "I'm doing this instead of that because I'm straight, you know;" or, "I like this option instead of that option because I'm so very, very straight."

Mix together, repeat several times per episode for 184 episodes, and you have your heterosexual Will & Grace, no problem.

[luminifer]

exactly!

and it would be SO unfunny.

"we're going to the bedroom now.. to have heterosexual sex"

well, that's actually funny, but only because it's so odd..

[tribblewing]

I agree it's disappointing that the show's not taking advantage of its premises and the old late night time slot to be more sexually progressive.

But then I wonder, cause on the surface, the question of whether homosexuality is really a choice *beyond fiction*, almost appears to not concern people like us, up to the point we'd like to see a couple of characters unconventionally love and boink together. But where does this desire for unconventional love and boinking come from? If we support homosexuality in fiction, does the logic that enable us to indulge in such, automatically lead us to embrace omnisexuality as morally valid as well?

I'd like to think that all forms of love and sex are morally valid, as long as it's mutual consent among equals. But I honestly don't understand why there *needs* to be a connection between love and sex, anyway. And I personally suspect, that trying to justify alternate modes of sexuality w/ love, is the problem.

I relished the idea of watching a world where people didn't identify themselves by and

[tribblewing]

But I honestly don't understand why there *needs* to be a connection between love and sex, anyway. And I personally suspect, that trying to justify alternate modes of sexuality w/ love, is the problem.

there are some who theorize that there's a natural (literally, meaning from nature) connection between the two to facilitate raising young, but who knows...

it you want to see how a sci-fi-ish author has tackled these (personally and in fiction), i (always) recommend samuel r delany...
triton is, in fact, loosely about someone from modern day ending up in jack harkness' future society...

i think even delany feels there's a connection - at least, that you should be having sex with the one(s) you love.. but nowhere near (in his mind) exclusively..

[luminifer]

grr, that was me..

[tribblewing]

I'm *this* close to advocating for complete abandonment of all associated attitudes towards sex aside from *recreational ones*. All my reasonings lead me to this conclusion, though I don't care enough to think it's worth fighting other people's value-judgments on the matter.

Linking love and sex might still have its purposes, but we've largely outgrown the procreational one, and w/ it goes the thing that follows (child-rearing), and all those 'natural' justifications.

Triton sounds really interesting. But I think I've already encountered that premise in-depth w/ Heinlein's utopian take from Time Enough for Love and For Us, The Living. And I guess, a dystopian view of it would be Huxley's Brave New World.

[fiendess]

from a political perspective the focus on biological determinism seems to be, "they can't help it so it is wrong to discriminate against them." but i'd say that it doesn't matter if it is a choice, it's still wrong to discriminate based on it. not that i'd say that applies to any choice, but choosing to be in a consensual relationship with someone "unconventional" is not the same thing as choosing to stab someone etc.
but this unfortunate political situation tends to stifle more interesting/philosophical discussions like what is here, which was refreshing

[luminifer]

there's another level - non political.. if it's a choice, or wholly psychological, the implication is that it can be cured with awful things like 'gay camp'....

if bioligical, well... hmm... the cure would be different ;)